"in evolutionary terms, when we consider the species as a whole, the unit of selection is too large for natural selection to have much impact." (pg 334). Therefore, it is understood that morality and ethical behavior is intuitive and has ties to our evolution, but does not directly relate to natural selection. The example from the reading of the two decisions on the train tracks is an example of this. Based on the experiments it is believed most humans would inadvertently kill one person to save five others rather than physically pushing that same person off of the bridge tom get the same results. The little bit of removal from that person's death would make the act more justified. The argument is our brains respond this way due to eons of evolution and our emotional pull.
Reciprocity plays a role in our moral decisions, especially, if our act is something we would want reciprocated in the future (I.e. Chimps each parasites off of each other). Reciprocity also helps detect cheats and the sense of indignation which can help weed out the undesirable members of a group.
Peter Singer’s ideas aren’t just a threat to society; they endanger the very existence of ethics and ethical behavior. At least this is how Susan Lufkin Kranz sees it. Singer’s thinking “is clearly an affront to our common humanity” (xiv). “Singer is not just aiming to overthrow traditional ethics; he is undermining ethics itself” (13). Adopting Singer’s ethical viewpoint would “spell the death of ethics and of every human value” (15). Singer is threatening specifically because of his theory of moral status. A theory of moral status outlines which entities we have duties towards and which entities we don’t. Singer thinks that no special status comes from being a member of the human species. What makes an entity important is sentience, the capacity to feel pleasure and pain and form preferences. This means that many nonhuman animals, such as chimpanzees, dogs, and cats, are morally significant. Some humans, on the other hand, such as fetuses and humans in a persistent vegetative state, are not. Most controversially, this means that infants with anencephaly, a developmental disorder where the child is born with just a brain stem and no mid-brain or higher brain, have absolutely no intrinsic moral status. If the parents consented, they can be used as a source of organs for transplant, even though they are not dead. Hence the shocking aspect of Singer’s beliefs: it is wrong to eat a cow, but it is sometimes ok to kill a baby. For Kranz, the claim that being a member of the human species does not bring moral status is beyond the pale of legitimate ethical systems: “Either humanity will retain its central position in the ethical universe, or else human ethics will come to an end and the values of the marketplace or some other horror will fill the vacuum” (15)."
I think there is far more to us than this over simplification of how we see things. We as a human race are different from other animals and our morality and ethics should reflect that.
---
"in evolutionary terms, when we consider the species as a whole, the unit of selection is too large for natural selection to have much impact." (pg 334). Therefore, it is understood that morality and ethical behavior is intuitive and has ties to our evolution, but does not directly relate to natural selection. The example from the reading of the two decisions on the train tracks is an example of this. Based on the experiments it is believed most humans would inadvertently kill one person to save five others rather than physically pushing that same person off of the bridge tom get the same results. The little bit of removal from that person's death would make the act more justified. The argument is our brains respond this way due to eons of evolution and our emotional pull.
Reciprocity plays a role in our moral decisions, especially, if our act is something we would want reciprocated in the future (I.e. Chimps each parasites off of each other). Reciprocity also helps detect cheats and the sense of indignation which can help weed out the undesirable members of a group.
Peter Singer’s ideas aren’t just a threat to society; they endanger the very existence of ethics and ethical behavior. At least this is how Susan Lufkin Kranz sees it. Singer’s thinking “is clearly an affront to our common humanity” (xiv). “Singer is not just aiming to overthrow traditional ethics; he is undermining ethics itself” (13). Adopting Singer’s ethical viewpoint would “spell the death of ethics and of every human value” (15). Singer is threatening specifically because of his theory of moral status. A theory of moral status outlines which entities we have duties towards and which entities we don’t. Singer thinks that no special status comes from being a member of the human species. What makes an entity important is sentience, the capacity to feel pleasure and pain and form preferences. This means that many nonhuman animals, such as chimpanzees, dogs, and cats, are morally significant. Some humans, on the other hand, such as fetuses and humans in a persistent vegetative state, are not. Most controversially, this means that infants with anencephaly, a developmental disorder where the child is born with just a brain stem and no mid-brain or higher brain, have absolutely no intrinsic moral status. If the parents consented, they can be used as a source of organs for transplant, even though they are not dead. Hence the shocking aspect of Singer’s beliefs: it is wrong to eat a cow, but it is sometimes ok to kill a baby. For Kranz, the claim that being a member of the human species does not bring moral status is beyond the pale of legitimate ethical systems: “Either humanity will retain its central position in the ethical universe, or else human ethics will come to an end and the values of the marketplace or some other horror will fill the vacuum” (15)."
I think there is far more to us than this over simplification of how we see things. We as a human race are different from other animals and our morality and ethics should reflect that.